Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect in your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do?
•Interrupt and correct the mistake right away.
•Wait until the class or meeting is over and the people are gone, and then talk to the teacher or meeting leader.
In today’s life, educating classes and work-meeting are two parts of our lives; students and employees are always interacted with their senior managers and professors in the classes and workplaces. However, in some cases, the information which has been conveyed by lecturers may be incorrect. In this approach, correcting wrong information is vital, but ways of correcting mistakes should be in a proper and decent manner. In my opinion, delaying the comments after the meeting is the best choice, and the audience should postpone their comments after the meeting. I will explain my viewpoint through two outstanding reasons.
First, in any presentation, having self-confidence is a crucial element, and even a professional lecturer who has presented a topic for many years might have only a few mistakes during the presentation. The best way for correcting the lecturer’s mistakes is taking a note during the presentation and giving it after the presentation or face to face talking after the meeting. By doing so, the lecturer can think about their mistakes, and he or she has an opportunity for correcting their mistakes until the next sessions. Nevertheless, by a simple disturbing element, lecturers may lose their self-confidence, and they are not able to do their best. In addition, in the large halls which there are plenty of students or audience, it causes bad effects on the audience, and they cannot rely on the lecturer. Also, in some cases, lecturers may resist comments, and they consider our comments as offensive treatment. By contrast, if we delay our comment until the end of the class or the meeting, we will explain our views in a logical fashion.
Second, conveying incorrect information to the audience might have bad consequences for people who are taking part in the meeting. Wrong information which is presented in the meeting cause lose quite a few capitals such as knowledge, reliability, and time, to name but a few. A person who can detect a problem should prevent conveying wrong information, and correcting fault information after learning is very hard, and the audience should assign quite a bit of time for solving their incorrect knowledge. Hence, the audience might fall into problems in their business that they cannot easily find the root of their problems. Additionally, the lecturer who knows their mistakes in the presentation tries to correct their problems, and many of the students and listeners will not learn incorrect information. Sadly, in a great number of universities, some professors have a pamphlet or references which is full of mistakes, and students without noticing these problems learn it, and wrong information has been passed through several generations of students.
In conclusion, self-confidence and preventing from conveying wrong information are vital in any presentation, and the audience should notice these factors. Nonetheless, correcting manner and participating in the presentation are two elements, we should consider in every presentation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1021, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER
Message: Consider replacing "in a logical fashion" with adverb for "logical"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... the meeting, we will explain our views in a logical fashion. Second, conveying incorrect informati...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, in addition, in conclusion, such as, in my opinion, in my view, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 9.8082437276 194% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 13.8261648746 210% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 43.0788530466 79% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 52.1666666667 109% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 8.0752688172 396% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2545.0 1977.66487455 129% => OK
No of words: 477.0 407.700716846 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33542976939 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0863070621 2.67179642975 116% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 212.727598566 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480083857442 0.524837075471 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 760.5 618.680645161 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 14.0 1.86738351254 750% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 14.0 4.94265232975 283% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2742588871 48.9658058833 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.25 100.406767564 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.85 20.6045352989 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.95 5.45110844103 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 11.8709677419 25% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 3.85842293907 363% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134084990394 0.236089414692 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0435278128618 0.076458572812 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0352364151027 0.0737576698707 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.085754846838 0.150856017488 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0537831731734 0.0645574589148 83% => OK
automated_readability_index: 15.6 11.7677419355 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 58.1214874552 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 10.9000537634 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.01818996416 104% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 86.8835125448 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.